Peanutbjelly

this is a difficult one.

for people (as well as myself) to understand nuance and the complicated nature of communication and interaction. our brains are good at filling in gaps of information, which is difficult for us to perceive. there is a complexity and sparsity of interpretations and perspective which we are largely incapable of realizing. this is largely due to the excess of knowledge and experiences in the world, which can be combined or perceived in countless different ways. we are especially ignorant to what we are ignorant of.

this means we exist in a high-dimensional battlefield ball of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and unintended inability to convey what was intended.

when we say something to someone, we expect they understand what we mean, but often their interpretations of the words you use can vary highly in ways you could not have predicted from your perspective. as well you may fail to realize the existence of several things that the other party understands or believes, which influences their perspective on countless possible things that have influenced their interpretation of your words in a way that you can't understand, and wouldn't know to discover.

at the same time many people are more susceptible to statistically ensured trend setting. this is mostly popular with bad actors who don't mind saying whatever they know will "work" instead of trying to convince people of what is true or reasonable.

TLDR: we are more confident than we should be for almost everything. we also suck at communicating for reasons that are too complex to fully see or interpret. be patient and reasonable, as we are all missing information. a good mediator helps find gaps in perspective. try not to be controlled by your emotion or instinctual reactions to situations. be critical when interpreting new information.

The wording of every single article has such an anti AI slant, and I feel the propaganda really working this past half year. Still nobody cares about advertising companies, but LLMs are the devil.

Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content.

Why is the negative focus always on the tech and not the political system that actually makes it a possible negative for people?

I swear, most of the people with heavy opinions don't even know half of how the machines work or what they are doing.

Exactly what I keep saying when people start blaming the tools being used for automation. Productivity is up and up and up, but none of that has been given back to the workers in the past fifty years. If I try to find dialogue on that issue, I run into a mountain of blatant propaganda defending the continued robbery of the middle and lower classes.

TY. i need to stop commenting with phone swipe keyboard.

We already know we aren't allowed to use someone's likeness without permission. The issue is companies like Disney who will end up legally owning all of the likenesses. Especially if we continue to beef up copyright, they will end up owning likeness to all artistic styles. Grimes did it right with the voice tech, but even that doesn't fix the real issue.

We need to fix the system we live in that is so terrible that it makes amazing new technology seem like a negative to the larger populace. We could destroy the loom to keep people employed, but that doesn't actually help anyone. It's no coincidence that we have record profits at the same time as unreasonable price hikes. That people are overworked and struggling after fifty years of unimaginable productivity growth.

There's a mountain of propaganda defending the rich as well. If I try to search for views critical of the ones that plundered the entire world, I get bombarded with excuses and defenses for indefensible behaviors. Why are people freaking out about the tech reaching Utopian levels when the real issue is keeping the thieves from stealing every gain we have as a society?

i mean, what's a more realistic solution? a small group that finds a high-tech development which can help us, or getting the majority of humanity to cooperate on what should be an obvious and necessary goal?

my bet's on the tech, at least with A.I. assisted research.

something has eroded my optimism towards the reliable and cooperative nature of our species. if we're putting our money on that, i consider us all doomed.

i'm still in the melanie mitchell school of thought. if we created an A.I. advanced enough to be an actual threat, it would need the analogous style of information processing that would allow machines to easily interpret instruction. there is no reasonable incentive for it to act outside of our instruction. don't anthropomorphise it with "innate desire to keep living even at the cost of humanity or anything else." we only have that due to evolution. i do not believe in the myth of stupid super-intelligence capable of being an existential threat.

Need a legal framework that ensures a likeness can only be used with a subscription fee.

I mean, we aren't allowed to own most of the stuff we buy now, should they be allowed to own us?

It's almost like we need an entirely new legal framework to ensure the non wealthy a standard of living while being continuously devalued over time by me technological developments. Artists already sell their souls to survive in this "market."

I believe it will require a level and pace of informational processing that is far beyond what humans will accomplish alone. just having a system that can efficiently sift through the excess existing papers, and find correlations or contradictions would be amazing for development of new technology. if you are paying attention to any environmental sciences right now, it's terrifying in an extremely real and tangible way. we will not outpace the collapse without an intense increase in technological development.

if we bridge the gap of analogical comprehension in these systems, they could also start introducing or suggesting technologies that could help slow down or reverse the collapse. i think this is much more important than making sure sarah silverman doesn't have her work paraphrased.

Personally I find this stupid. If we have robots walking around, are they going to be sued every time they see something that's copywrited?

It's this what will stop progress that could save us from environmental collapse? That a robot could summarize your shitty comedy?

Copywrite is already a disgusting mess, and still nobody cares about models being created specifically to manipulate people en mass. "What if it learned from MY creations" asks every self obsessed egoist in the world.

Doesn't matter how many people this tech could save after another decade of development. Somebody think of the [lucky few artists that had the connections and luck to make a lot of money despite living in our soul crushing machine of a world]

All of the children growing up abused and in pain with no escape don't matter at all. People who are sick or starving or homeless do no matter. Making progress to save the world from immanent environmental disaster doesn't matter. Let Canada burn more and more every year. As long as copywrite is protected, all is well.

How about an art director using Disney/Warner money to direct a bunch of interns? The artists are being used as a tool for someone else to make their art without the effort that work should require. Does it belong more to the interns that worked on each piece? Or the director who had the vision and direction? while you might not care for simple prompt direction, or want to take credit for anything you've made with these tools, even easy work made with a powerful tool can be interpreted for its own merit, and could give smaller creators an effective "team" to compete with people who have endless resources.

You can also spend time and effort in conjunction with these tools to create something specific to what you had envisioned. Does this lack value due to the medium?

I think art is a complex concept with high subjectivity, but this type of selectivity happens every time a new tool or medium is introduced. Judge each work as you will, but don't go around claiming "this thing isn't art" because of reasons that lose meaning or truth in any other medium or context.